User talk:Apokryltaros

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

/User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 1


January 2014[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to List of Zyuden Sentai Kyoryuger characters. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Mr Fink (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

But the episode that came out has covered it at the end. (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Apokryltaros. You have new messages at Afro-Eurasian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dire Wolf[edit]

Even though I looked up "Dire wolf" because of the Grateful Dead song I enjoyed your comments on the talk page about "trivial cameos." Although I've never actually done it (and won't), I've been tempted to add text to some of the articles that I've created or extensively edited stating that "such-and-such has never been referenced on The Simpsons, South Park, or Family Guy." PurpleChez (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd recommend making a "Dire wolf in popular culture" article, or something along those lines.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ptychoparia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Walcott (check to confirm | [[tools:~dispenser/cgi- bin/|fix with Dab solver]]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Largest organisms[edit]

If he reverts again, please let me know. Do not revert him, please. Continue working with him as you already are at the article's talk page. I presume at some point he will actually provide some useful feedback. Kuru (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Taxonomy vandal[edit]

Hey, I saw your AIV report here. Wanted to bring to your attention to TrelocKidding, who had a similar pattern (setting up a campaign here) and a few socks. If memory serves me, at the time I believed that they were also related to WangsDaringsFun, though I'm not sure if that was ever expressly confirmed. I think WangsDaringsFun was confirmed as FanforClarl. So heads-up! :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


I think you meant to use the template {{IPvandal}} as opposed to {{vandalIP}}. They are similar but the latter is seemingly a talk page warning. Mkdwtalk 06:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Pardon, I've been meaning to wean myself off of copying and pasting. I find myself repeatedly reporting an infuriatingly persistent vandal.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I've taken care of it for the time being. Mkdwtalk 06:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so very much for your help.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Starfish[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Starfish know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 28, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 28, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:


There are about 1,500 living species of starfish to be found on the seabed in all the world's oceans, from the tropics to subzero polar waters and from the intertidal zone down to abyssal depths, 6,000 m (20,000 ft) below the surface. Starfish are among the most familiar of marine invertebrates. They typically have a central disc and five arms. The upper surface may be smooth, granular or spiny, and is covered with overlapping plates. Many species are brightly coloured in shades of red or orange, while others are blue, grey or brown. Starfish have tube feet operated by a hydraulic system and a mouth at the centre of the lower surface. They have complex life cycles and can reproduce both sexually and asexually. Most can regenerate damaged parts or lost arms and they can shed arms as a means of defence. Starfish such as the ochre sea star and the reef sea star have become widely known as examples of the keystone species concept in ecology. With their appealing symmetrical shape, starfish are found in literature, legend and popular culture. They are sometimes collected as curios, used in design or as logos, and in some cultures, despite possible toxicity, they are eaten. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Just Checking[edit]

Yes I did. Sorry I was occupied lately and didn't have a lot of free time to find the resources. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thylacosmilus Page[edit]

The reason that I removed those illustrations is because they are inaccurate. The one in the upper right hand corner especially depicts the animal as having a short body length, which it was actually quite long, with a long neck, and both pictures depict it having fleshy scabbards on the ventral mental processes, which there is no evidence of it having had these. I put a picture that I found floating around the internet drawn by Mauricio Antón up earlier and made sure to cite it, but I'm not sure if he's alright with that, so I want to get his permission before I use it.

I also asked another artist on Deviant Art if we might be able to use his rendition, which is slightly inaccurate (the snout is turned a little more upwards than it would have been in life), but certainly a far cry from these two drawings. Until I get an answer though, I think that no illustration is better than two bad ones. Zirojtan (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In that case, why don't we just swap in the skull photo and delete the gallery section?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

What a creative solution! Haha. I must retarded. Yeah that sounds like a good idea until I hear back from Mauricio or this other artist. Zirojtan (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Everyone has brainfarts. I think Mauricio will eventually permit the picture's use, as we have his reconstruction of the woolly mammoth. Ideally, the taxobox should always have a picture, ideally of the holotype, or a cast, or of a clear fossil, though, as you pointed out, an accurate reconstruction works very nicely, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crinozoa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Liberty taking[edit]

Me, that is... I've changed the order of your wording at User talk:Philipandrew to "It is inappropriate and not necessary" so that the 'not' can't be taken to apply to the 'inappropriate'. Lawyers make a lot of money out of ambiguous wordings... They probably wouldn't there, but I always prefer to be on the safe side. 8-) Peridon (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for your edit. Would you consider making an illustration of it? AshLin (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's the latest prehistoric fad in DeviantArt, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


Hello. I have a couple of issues with the Meteoraspis article as it stands right now:

  • I think it is over the top to use the distinguish template for Parameteoraspis, which is not easily confused with meteoraspis. I haven't tried, but I am sure I can come up with several closer generic names. I have replaced it with another template that is more useful in my humble opinion.
  • Meteoraspis Stensio, 1927, would precede Meteoraspis Resser, 1935, so the text was confusing. However, I think this authority assignment is faulty. It took some time, but look at this citation, page 201, starting 10 lines from the bottom: "... Parameteoraspis nov. nom. (in replacement of Meteoraspis Janvier, 1981a - type species C. gigas Wängsjö, 1952 - preoccupied by Meteoraspis Resser, 1935: Trilobita) appears in the Benneviaspis horizon with P. pinnifera (Wängsjö) ..."
  • Placing this information under the heading Synonymy is incorrect. Janvier's name is a jr. homonym of Resser's. It would be consistent with many trilobite articles to create a heading Reassigned species, and add the homonymy information in the box. I made these changes.
  • Although GNI indeed lists Meteoraspis partim, I do not think this is a species, "partim" meaning "partially". So I removed it from the specieslist.

Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

a) The template you've used now works better than the one I'm using. If you come up with a better one, so much the better.
b) That is a good point, though, I think the move may have been a matter of nomen oblitum. Either way, though, it's a moot point as agnathan researchers appear to be just fine with Parameteoraspis.
c) I have no disagreement with your retitling the section: thank you.
d) Yeah, some of the information in the GNI is questionable: it lists "Meteoraspia delia," but, I could not find anything about it in google beyond its listing in the GNI, and misspelling of "MeteoraspiS"--Mr Fink (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Great! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


It's the wrong venue for such a complaint. Insults/threats are usually dealt with better at WP:AN/I. AIV is strictly for blocking users who are clearly vandalizing. Enigmamsg 20:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Understood.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


I actually thought that last comment was a better candidate for WP:DENY myself. :-) Sunrise (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


I used Jack Sepkoski's data as my source for those timelines. You're welcome to correct or delete them. I made them a long time ago and forgot about them. Lateley I've been cleaning out my userspace and just livespaced them in case they were useful. I'm not super attached to them or anything. Abyssal (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I have a crap load more of those fish timelines still in my user space. I was wondering if you wanted to have a look at them. If you think they're inaccurate I'll just have them deleted instead of articlespacing them. Abyssal (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Or amended as the case may be.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boavus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Green River, Trinity River and Boa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


In the section Seahorses#Reproduction, there is a diagram to the right illustrating the steps in the reproduction cycle of seahorses. In the caption under the diagram we read the following sentence:

"The male ejects the baby seahorses, from 5 to 2,500 young, averaging 100–1000."

The problem is that it is not made clear what "100-1000" refers to. Is it weight? CorinneSD (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess you didn't reply to this because it is clear to you. I didn't really see it before, but now I see that it means it is usually between 100 and 1,000 baby seahorses. I had thought there was something missing after the numbers 100-1,000. I believe it would be clearer with the addition of a few more words. I'm going to work on it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I finally found it. It is in the caption under the diagram in the section on "Reproduction". I still think it is not as clear as it could be, but if a reader reads the sentence in "Births", the caption will be clear enough. Sorry to bother you. CorinneSD (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't reply to this message because I didn't notice it. Sorry about that.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


I just looked at your User page for the first time. Where did you get all those wonderful pictures in your "To Done" list? CorinneSD (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I drew and colored them all.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
They're fabulous. I love all of them. CorinneSD (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much!--Mr Fink (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
You could sell them as prints, or put a book together (perhaps with articles about the animals). Would you mind if I posted one of them on my User page, giving you credit? I could include a link to your User page, too. I would just like to look at it now and then. If not, that's fine. CorinneSD (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I (try to) sell them as prints at my DeviantArt account, and yes, I am in the process of collaborating with some of my paleoart friends to put a prehistoric animal book together. And yes, please be my guest.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


I think you need to add the {{hab}} on its own line as the {{hat}} wasn't closed. I assume that you didn't add one so, I added another. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about creating a template....[edit]

...for a series on primitive species? The template would link together sturgeon, paddlefish, bowfin, garfishes, and there's one other species I can't think of right now. I would very much appreciate your input. Atsme talk 20:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. Would we include the bony tongues, and would we focus on particular groups, i.e., primitive bony fish, mammals, reptiles, etc?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Numerous possibilities, and it would prove extremely beneficial to Wiki readers, and student researchers. Hopefully you know how to get a template started, because I've never done it before. If you don't have the time to set it up, I'd be happy to get it started if you could point me in the right direction. I'll also be happy to collaborate setting it up, and adding the various articles. Atsme talk 20:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Just saw your art - WOW. Very nice!!! Atsme talk 20:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Coelacanth? CorinneSD (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
@CorinneSD: Absolutely. And so it begins. Atsme talk 20:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and yeah, that's a good idea, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok - I'm going to start the template, and will post here when it's ready for collaboration. Atsme talk 20:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


I'm a blocked troll? I think you may have filled in the wrong username. Who did you mean? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies, I believe I have confused you with BryndisYngvadottir--Mr Fink (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


I tried to fix a red link at the beginning of Seahorse#Reproduction so that it would be a blue link but without success. Can you fix it? CorinneSD (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Which link? To "Brood pouch (Syngnathidae)"? In my opinion, either, someone starts that page, or we make it a section of Syngnathidae--Mr Fink (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's the link. I wouldn't be able to start that kind of article (I haven't written any WP article.) If one is started, how much information would it contain? How much information is there about the syngnathidae brood pouch? I can't imagine a whole lot. I think if information on it is added to the article on Syngnathidae it would improve the article, which is now only four paragraphs long. CorinneSD (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
As a stub, it wouldn't need to contain too much information. Ideally, a definition, and maybe some links or references.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Then I guess more information can be added later as it becomes known. Do you want to create the stub? CorinneSD (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Why not you have that honor, and I'll touch it up afterwards.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dunkleosteidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gulshan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heterostraci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subclass (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Corsican giant shrew[edit]

I was looking at an edit to Corsica just now in which an editor added several extinct species. I clicked on the some of the links to read the articles. I saw that there was no picture for Corsican giant shrew, and I remembered that you have drawn many pictures of extinct animals, so I thought I'd tell you about this. Maybe you could find, or draw, a picture for this article. CorinneSD (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

  • goes digging for his pith helmet for reference hunting, and preps Yakkety Sax as theme music*--Mr Fink (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are conveying. I figure it's humor, but it escapes me. Are you making fun of the editor who added the names of the extinct animals, or are you jesting about yourself as you search for more information? I'm not familiar with that piece of music, either. I really wish I did understand the allusions. You're brilliant, talented, articulate, and kind, and I feel bad that I don't follow you. I thought you'd be interested in both this kind of edit and in the challenge of finding a suitable image for an extinct animal. CorinneSD (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm jesting about as I hunt for more information on the animal, which is thought to be related to watershrews.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Block-evading, IP-hopping vandal[edit]

I noticed that you warned editor (talk) for being a repeat vandal under different IPs. I suspect that he is also using (talk) to reapply his reversed edits. I've already undone two edits (first and second) by that IP, which are identical to the edit you reversed from the other IP.

These edits repeatedly apply the Legendary birds category to the Ibong Adarna article, in spite of the recent consensus that the bird is not a legend or myth. I'm concerned that this will become an ongoing back-and-forth with this vandal. Both IPs have a clear predilection for cryptozoology and anime, so I strongly suspect sockpuppetry in this case. Is this behavior actionable at this time, or should there be a more substantial ongoing pattern?

Samatict (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


Since you were so helpful with my questions about Nickel and your edits were so well-done, would you mind if I ask you a few questions about Calcium, which I've just started to read?

1) In Calcium#Notable characteristics, fifth paragraph (starting "Calcium salts..."), in the middle of the paragraph are the following sentences:

"Notable exceptions include the hydroxide, the sulfate (unusual for sulfate salts), the carbonate and the phosphates. With the exception of the sulfate, even the insoluble ones listed are in general more soluble than its transition metal counterparts."

Do you see the possessive adjective "its" in the second sentence? It is not clear to what it refers. It's got to refer to a singular noun. It probably means "calcium's transition metal counterparts", but there are other singular nouns before this sentence (such as "the sulfate"), and the word "calcium" is pretty far back. Is it clear to you that it means "calcium's", or do you agree that it's ambiguous? Can you clear this up?

2) In the sixth paragraph of Calcium#Notable characteristics is the following sentence:

" Calcium is the fifth-most-abundant element by mass in the human body, where it is a common cellular ionic messenger with many functions, and serves also as a structural element in bone."

I think this sentence is a bit wordy, and I'm just wondering if the word "common" could be deleted. I think "a cellular ionic messenger with many functions" is sufficient. What do you think?

3) In the section Calcium#H and K lines is the following sentence:

For the Sun and stars with low temperatures, the prominence of the H and K lines can be an indication of strong magnetic activity in the chromosphere."

Earlier in this paragraph, the Sun and other stars were kind of grouped together. Here, it sounds like the Sun is not a "star with low temperatures".

If that is what was meant, then the addition of "for" before "stars with low temperatures" would clear up any ambiguity.

If the sun is one of the stars with low temperatures, then the word "other" needs to be added before "stars with low temperatures".

Well, that's all for now. CorinneSD (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

1) That one is a grammatical mess, especially since it was written with, what appear to me to be, easter egg style links, which only serve to make the sentence too ambiguous.
This sentence is much improved.
2) I tweaked problem sentence #2 to eliminate "common," though, as it stands, it still seems a bit wordy.
I'm going to see what I can do with it.
3) As for problem sentence #3, I decided to simply replace "For" with "When observing," and being unsure whether or not the Sun is a "star with low temperature," I replaced "and" with "or."

--Mr Fink (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding #3, I decided to try and find someone who knows whether the Sun is a low temperature star. Once we know that, we can word the sentence correctly. In the meantime, I just wonder about using "When observing the Sun....". The first sentence in the paragraph makes it clear that this is about observing the visible spectrum of the Sun and other stars. I believe this type of observing is not done with the naked eye but with specialized equipment. I believe that is the reason for the word "for" -- i.e., the visible spectrum for the sun. (It is a kind of observing, but not the ordinary kind of observing, so I think "When observing the Sun" might be a little misleading for the average reader.) I think "For" works better. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Changed my mind. Upon re-reading, I realized that the subsequent phrase, "can be an indication of strong magnetic activity in the chromosphere", and the following sentence, mean that the spectra change depending on what's going on at the time of observation, and thus, "When observing" makes sense. I just added "in the visible spectra" after "the H and K lines" to make it a little clearer. CorinneSD (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
That sounds good, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
What are "easter egg style links"? I can't figure out how to go back and look at it the way it was (in order to see what you were referring to). It's easier just to ask you. CorinneSD (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Links that are not intuitive to the reader, or that surprise the reader, or otherwise do not explain or too subtly hint at the linked page's connection with the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks. I read that section to which you provided a link. I'm a bit puzzled by the Richard Feynman/parton example because I see many links where the first item (before the pipe) is, of course, hidden from the reader's view but goes to a WP article that has a title different from the last item in the link (which is the one the reader reads).
Regarding Item #3, above, I found an editor who, while not an astronomer, appears quite knowledgeable. You might find his/her informative reply interesting. See Kylie Tastic's talk page (I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble creating the link). I even read parts of the material to which he/she provided links (but of course only understood some of it), but I am still unable to make a determination regarding the sentence we were discussion (Item #3, above). CorinneSD (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


I just started reading the article on Brachiopods, and I found a sentence that doesn't look quite right. I thought maybe you could fix it. It is the last sentence in the third paragraph:

"Larvae of articulate species are different from the adult forms,blob only on yolk, remain only among the plankton for only a few days, and then start metamorphosing."

CorinneSD (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Since I posted this comment, I've made a few more edits, but I still don't know what to do with that sentence.

I have a question. In the lead and in at least two other places in the article, I read lingulid or lingulids, but in the last paragraph in Brachiopod#Shells and their mechanisms (under "Description"), there is the following phrase:

"Linguids and discinids".

I searched on WP for "linguids" and found nothing besides this very instance. I wonder whether it might be a typo and it should be "lingulids". I know very little about marine (or any) zoology, so I thought I'd add it to my list of questions here. CorinneSD (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote that problem sentence as:
"The plankonic larvae of articulate species do not resemble the adults, looking like blobs with yolksacs, and remain only among the plankton for only a few days before leaving the water column upon metamorphosing."
I want to tweak it further as soon as I find a picture of what an articulate brachiopod larva looks like.
As for the problem of "linguids," I'm almost certain that it's a misspelling of "lingulids."--Mr Fink (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Primitive Species Template[edit]

Primitive Species Template has been nominated for deletion. Can you please provide input. AtsmeWills talk 02:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Will do.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The template was removed from the sturgeon article, I undid it, and he reverted it. I don't understand how he can suddenly decide something doesn't belong just because he doesn't like the title. Shouldn't the template be allowed to remain until a consensus has been reached? Isn't that what policy dictates? AtsmeWills talk 22:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Policy suggests that, yes, though, to avoid escalating into edit warring, we should just wait until the consensus decides what to formally do.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thank you, Mr. Fink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talkcontribs) 23:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, the discussion has escalated into 10,423 words - more than most Wiki articles. I'd laugh if I wasn't so tired from typing. Much to my dismay, there was some purposeful deletion of several primitive fishes templates along with references to the term "primitive" in the articles I listed to justify keeping the template. I've been reverting, and adding back the template, but at the same time, I don't want to get tangled up in an edit war. I've already compromised a little on my end by allowing the image on the template to be deleted, and even welcomed a little housekeeping on the order of the linked articles. Now I see where the following sentence has been added in the section above the template at the various articles: ‹ The template below (Primitive fishes) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus.› Not quite sure what to do next except wait out the 30 days to see what happens. AtsmeWills talk 05:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Apokryltaros Do you know how to make the primitive fishes template the same width as the Taxobox? AtsmeWills talk 13:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Such is the heartache of wikidrama. I looked through the Taxobox template information, and I'm not sure what to do to adjust the width of the template. I'll ask around.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User talk:[edit]

Letting you know I removed the vandal warnings from this guys page. The edits to saber-toothed cat seem to be good-faith and I'm gonna try the welcoming approach :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 04:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Understood.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand.....[edit]

You, of course, are free to post on my talk page any time.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I know when to take a hint to hike. I haven't spent half my life watching Jack Benny without learning anything, after all.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely loved Jack Benny, but didn't appreciate his humor then as much as I do now. Hope you don't mind me chiming in, considering the expense of giving away my age, but then I can always refer back to having seen reruns purchased via Time Life. AtsmeWills talk 17:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
You're thirty-nine twice, too?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Uh oh. You must be referring to radio. I'm referring to television reruns of the Jack Benny Program in color, but there are definitely times when I feel thirty-nine twice. AtsmeWills talk 19:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Bowfin question[edit]

I have found over the years that biologists tend to write scientific prose rather than engaging prose, even though both maintain accuracy. Wiki guidelines suggest engaging prose, especially in the lead-in. Considering you've been editing the bowfin article from time to time, may I please ask your opinion on the following diffs with regards to which lead-in you think more readers would be inclined to stay "hooked"? AtsmeWills talk 18:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

From what I've learned is that Wikipedia's primary function is to educate the reader, not entertain, though, yes, it is extremely difficult to educate an unhooked reader. Or at least, err towards scientific prose, but veer away from jargon, and use only a small amount of science technicalities when appropriate. But, anyhow, please proceed.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Ooops, forgot to include the link, so here it is now. [1] Memory issues...must be early onset of the thirty-nine twice anomaly. AtsmeWills talk 19:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I think I would go with Cyclopia's version, if only because "only true "bony fish"" sounds both awkward and misleading. We can still integrate both versions further.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm flexible. The term came right from a cited reliable source, so it wasn't something I made up, but I did think it was an interesting point to emphasize since not all "bony fish" are bony. Cyclopia prefers to use the category "bony fish" instead of "ray-finned fish" even for species that are almost entirely cartilaginous. Also if you'll look in the first paragraph of the sturgeon article, it uses the term, "true sturgeons". Seemed to fit, but I'm always open to "better". AtsmeWills talk 20:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
We could mention in the anatomy section about how, of all the extent members of Osteichthys, the bowfin is the only member whose skeleton is not cartilaginous.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
That could work. I'm tickled to see the article growing from starter to at least something with information!! Know what I mean? AtsmeWills talk 20:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Like vitamins.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeppers, but in this case, in light of the ongoing discussions at Cfd and Tfd, it's more like "Miracle Grow". AtsmeWills talk 20:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Bowfin assessed[edit]

Congrats - our collaborative efforts made a difference. [2] AtsmeWills talk 22:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! Congratulations!--Mr Fink (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I posted the same "congrats" on Cyclopia's talk page. He thought it was some kind of joke, and didn't understand. Since he doesn't listen to me, would you be so kind as to explain it to him on his talk page? AtsmeWills talk 01:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


Maybe Humandictionary should be warned because this is the second time his/her vandalizing edits to Seahorse have been undone in the last few minutes. I don't know if there is a warning template that can be used, or where to find it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Humandictionary's edits remind me too much of those of a vandalism-only account.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Prolibytherium may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ' remains in flux. At one time, it was described as a relative of ''[[Sivatherium]]'' (as a precursor to "Libytherium maurusium" (''S. maurusium''). Later, it would be regarded as a [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


Sorry. You're right.
I mistook it as redundant when it's not. (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: Trump caterpillar[edit]

The image of Donald Trump on Megalopyge opercularis was NOT vandalism. I intended for it to compare the caterpillar to Trump's wig, and that was the best picture that was lawfully on Wikipedia that I could use. I had no intention of disruption or vandalism in mind and am greatly insulted that you made such a claim.

I have a valid and reliable source that makes the exact comparison I added to the Gallery and even cited it in a previous edit. It even has two pictures, one of Donald Trump and one of the Megalopyge opercularis.

I request an apology, and remember, Assume Good Faith, because I had no malice involved.

-- (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I can't judge the reliability of that source, but I know Apokryltaros can, and will. I just wanted to add that just because something is published doesn't mean that it is in good taste or adds significantly to an article. CorinneSD (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I already reverted what I did.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand, another editor rereverted, stating that such a controversial statement does need a citation to support it, and that such a statement can be potentially (mis)construed as libel, as per WP:GRAPEVINE, and was the original reason why I mistook it for vandalism in the first place.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Richard Proenneke[edit]

I posted a question about an edit to Richard Proenneke at User talk:Vsmith#Richard Proenneke. Vsmith replied and suggested looking at the source to find out what was used there. Can you either help me find the source or make a determination yourself regarding the edit? "Contiguous United States", while possibly correct technically, sounds a little odd to both Vsmith and myself (and I don't know who else to ask about U.S. geography). CorinneSD (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

When the term "Contiguous United States," they mean "the Continental United States" or "48 States," i.e., those States that border each other, thus excluding Alaska and Hawaii. I will check your question, and see what I can do to help.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. (I knew that. It still sounds odd in this context.) CorinneSD (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Abiogenesis. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, Mr. Fink -- I posted this comment on Dr. Bogdan's talk page. He replied that he thought "arises" is more encylopaedic and neutral, and suggested I post it on the talk page of the article, but I don't want to, at least not now. I just want to know why you think "arises" is the best verb.

I've read some of the discussions on the talk page of Abiogenesis. I can only follow it to a certain extent since I'm not a scientist, but I have been fascinated by the exchanges. I noticed that a consensus was reached regarding the use of the verb "arises" at the beginning of the article. I just thought I'd share with you my reaction to that word. It seems to me to be a rather boring, vague verb that doesn't really say much. Is it so on purpose because no one really knows exactly when or how life arose from non-living matter? (Please understand that I firmly believe in evolution and am not a creationist.) I would have chosen a more active, interesting verb such as "springs", "develops", "emerges", etc. (or the past tense form if that is appropriate). Just a thought. I'd love to learn more. CorinneSD (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, as an encyclopedia, I've been informed that our ultimate goal is to inform the reader, and not to entertain the reader. Having said that, I do recognize, as you've pointed out, that we do need to capture our readers' attention. Of the suggested synonyms you bring up, I would think that "develops" has the best potential.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Dire Wolves on Game of Thrones[edit]

Why remove that information we all know Dire Wolves appear on Game of Thrones and that is probably where most people have heard of them from. Byzantinefire (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As was mentioned on Talk:Dire wolf several times, a) fantasy "dire wolves" are invariably magically enlarged grey wolves and do not actually have anything at all to do with Canis dirus save for the same common name, b) are the "dire wolves" of the Game of Thrones franchise really are C. dirus, or are they merely stock fantasy enlarged grey wolves? c) if dire wolves really are integral to Game of Thrones, then how come they are not mentioned in the appropriate article page beyond a one-word mention? and, most importantly, d) "In Popular Culture" sections are about how society and or popular views the topic, and not uncited laundry lists of "Spot the Monster" cameo appearances (which was why Dire Wolf's "In Popular Culture" was removed in the first place). In other words, if you want to include mention of "Game of Thrones" on Dire Wolf as a part of the "In Popular Culture" section, please provide an explanation, supported with reputable sources, that Game of Thrones "dire wolves" are the reason "most people have heard of them from." That, and are you really certain that most people have heard of dire wolves through the HBO series, and not, say, books on prehistoric animals?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Well actually i first learned of Dire Wolves through books but it might not be the cass with everyone else. Byzantinefire (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Either way, it would strongly help your case if you were to find reputable sources that support the notability of Game of Thrones dire wolves, and or that the Game of Thrones dire wolves are, in fact, C. dirus.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I guess George R.R Martin might have the answer. Byzantinefire (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Apokryltaros. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 04:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 04:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


Do you agree with the latest edits to Fossil? I wonder particularly about changing "Petrification" to "Petrifaction". CorinneSD (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems a little like word-mincing, but, the article is "Petrifaction," after all.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
OMG. I had not even checked to see the title of the article to which the link led. I had never heard the word "petrifaction" and confused it with "putrefaction". I had only heard the word "petrification" and associated that with "fossil". It shows I need to check things more before I ask a question about it, and I learned something new. Sorry to have bothered you. CorinneSD (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem. That I helped clarify things is always a plus.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Review American paddlefish, FA nominee[edit]

Good day to you, Mr Fink - if you find a lull in your relentless schedule, would you be so kind as to look over the American paddlefish article, and consult with me regarding its FA potential? AtsmeConsult 16:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it has good potential. I did a little tweaking of the prose to help.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, kindly. One question, wrote: A second, extinct species, P. tuberculata, fossils of which are found in the Lower Paleoscene Tullock Formation in Montana, approximately 60 million years ago. Perhaps it's just me, but it seems incomplete. Should the sentence begin with "There is" or "There was" a second, now extinct species, P. tuberculata,.....??? AtsmeConsult 23:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
"There is" as the second species still has a distinct status. Actually, neither would be necessary.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Good evening, Mr. Fink. Remember my question above regarding the incomplete sentence? Following is the comment from the FA reviewer: "A second, extinct species, P. tuberculata, fossils of which are found in the Lower Paleoscene Tullock Formation in Montana, approximately 60 million years ago" - This sentence has no verb. I'm going to make the change I suggested above. If you had something different in mind for that particular sentence, please feel free to make any changes you deem appropriate. AtsmeConsult 03:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The changes you've just made are more than adequate, thank you.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about Redundant Categories[edit]

I have found other pages of sharks that had the prehistoric cartilagenous fish as a added category, should I replace them with (XPeriod) sharks? I'm not sure if the prehistoric cartilagenous fish category applies or not.Tnophelia (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"Prehistoric cartilaginous fish" should be a super-category, so, yes, those articles that have it should be replaced with "category: (XPeriod) sharks" as necessary. The only articles that should have "prehistoric cartilaginous fish" as a category are higher-taxon articles (i.e., Paraselachii, etc).--Mr Fink (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

WWD dinosaurs....[edit]

Australovenator is the polar allosaur and it had mistakes because few bones were found and were the same species. That was the largest carnivore on Australia at the time and they said it in the narration. Thescelosaurus were the hypsilophodonts not identified (it lived 66-65 million years ago same time as episode). Also a purgatorius appeared in the same episode as a mammal in the volcanic vents and it was shown dead. What are we going to do, so I will never do it again? -- (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

But you keep one? I have all the books, checked the official site and watched the documentary. The Dromaeosaurus is not called Dromaeosaurus in any of them. Its just dromaeosaur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No. I know that now. Checked site and books nothing. But please remove Dromaeosaurus, also Pleslioplureodon (never mentioned that). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Bringing up a Tu quoque does not excuse you from inappropriately identifying those animals. That, and you're not yet blocked, so you don't need to boss me around, either. Also [3], and that Plesiopleurodon is identified as such according to the British original.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


Thank you for your kind note, after which my comments will seem to cavil. As I explained on the article talk page, I moved the page to the new title "-(trilobite)" for consistency with the disambiguation used in the given category; you've moved it with the edit summary "genus rather than trilobite". Is that just personal preference, or is there a wider reason? if so, the other pages will need moving also, for consistency: If not, I'd be inclined to say this page was better where it was.
What do you think? I will look for a reply here, or at the article talk page: Either way I will need to fix the links to the Balnibarbi title, but I'll need to know where to fix them to. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's been my experience that if there is only one biological taxon named after something, then it's best to simply title it "Name (genus)". If there's more than one entity with one name, like, say, Orthoceras, or Proteus, then it would be prudent to have a more specific descriptor.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, but that doesn't really resolve the issue. Is there a naming convention for these things? Or another guideline that is also applicable? Otherwise the category is 3:1 in favour of "-(trilobite)", and the "Trilobites sorted by geochronology" category is 6:3 in favour overall. And "-(genus)" is as uninformative as "Gulliver's Travels (print)" would be. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
PS:I've not seen a reply to this, so I've gone ahead and reverted the move.
If you feel strongly that the chosen title is incorrect, and have a guideline to support that, perhaps it'd be best to take it to Requested moves for a third party to decide on it.
I trust you are OK with that: Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not okay with the move, especially since you appeared to have totally ignored the reasons I gave, i.e., if there are no other taxa with the same name, it is unnecessary to be so specific.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's you that has totally ignored my answer, which was that the reason you gave doesn't really resolve the issue (being a statement of your personal preference); and that when I asked for you to suggest a naming convention or guideline that supported your contention, which you haven't yet given. But we'll see what the RM decides... Moonraker12 (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your expertise is requested for bowfin...[edit]

Mr. Fink - would you be so kind as to review the following, and help me conform to the requested clean-up? [4] The irony of it all. Doesn't seem that long ago I was arguing a "primitive fishes" battle, and here it is again, only this time in the reverse. *lol* AtsmeConsult 14:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Almost done but I'm having issues with the Evolution and phylogeny section. Will you please peruse [5], and let me know if any of the cladograms would work in concert with the Evolution and phylogeny section at Bowfin? Considering the section starts off with Competing hypotheses and debates continue over the evolution of Amia and relatives, it makes it hard to know which cladogram the reviewer would like to see. I included a diagram showing the 4 varying hypotheses, but I don't know what more I need to do. What are your thoughts on that section? AtsmeConsult 02:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The second cladogram would be most helpful for the article, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
That's the one I recreated and uploaded, but there's just one problem - it doesn't follow in line with what's written in the article. The cladogram shows Actinopterygians can be divided into two distinct groups: basal actinopterygians and neopterygians while the article states two monophyletic groups: Chondrostei (holosteans) and Neopterygii (teleost fishes). At this point, I'm wondering if I should just scrap Cyclopia's hypotheses treatment, and just go with what is currently accepted - like what's at the link I gave you for the University College of London? We can always update the article with the most current information once the scientists get it all ironed out, right? As it stands now, there's just too much controversy and confusion. AtsmeConsult 04:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
That would probably be the best course of action, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Think I got it all fixed. Thanks for your help, Mr. Fink. AtsmeConsult 17:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Great!--Mr Fink (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for setting me straight regarding Evolution.


Johannon (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome.[edit]

Trophy.png You're welcome.
You're welcome, Apokryltaros! Trevayne08 (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again!--Mr Fink (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

another big thank you[edit]

Thank you for looking into that article. I believe another user…I think it was "Yintan" put a place where we could request "wp:padlock" or something like that. check the talk page.


Johannon (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Then that means the page is now locked, i.e., that certain types of users are restricted from editing that page.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Evolution Thread[edit]

Thanks for removing the anti-Bible hate speech by Ian. It always surprises me when users describing themselves as non-biased engage in hate speech against a religion. NaN, ILoveProgramming (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's just say that I prefer to keep things as per house rules.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the gallery.[edit]

This one in particular.

Cool name, too. I wouldn't have ever clicked it to find this if it had sounded like something else.

Keep up the good work! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:24, November 7, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Though, I need to redraw Sinotherium one of these days.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting user name[edit]

I just thought you might be interested in seeing a new user name User:Platypusmonotreme who just edited Papua New Guinea. Perhaps a zoologist? CorinneSD (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Either that or another science fan. Platypus also did a lot of editing at Microbrachius, too: we could ask.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

there is a discussion going to be going on and you're involved[edit] (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI: I moved the discussion for the IP from the archive page over to the live WP:ANI page. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 01:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Special wishes....[edit]

XmasTreeWorm-Atsme- IMG 0514.jpg
Gorgeous!--Mr Fink (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Your AIV report[edit]

I removed it. There is no "vendetta", and if you're filing a complaint for edit warring you should have reported the other party as well. There was no vandalism. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that I was a bit slower, but I was about to refer the case to WP:AN/EW instead, which is the appropriate place for edit warring (not vandalism). And Drmies is right about reporting other parties as well.--Slon02 (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to accept that the editor's comments are not personal attacks.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, in that case you're going to have to be much more specific. "Grow up" isn't much of a blockable personal insult. Slon02, I appreciate the note. Merry Christmas Eve. I gotta put a trampoline together. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. And remember to put the trampoline away from the good china.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

The christmas velociraptor by durbed.jpg

Oh, you'd better watch out, you'd better not cry, you'd better not pout, I'm telling you why

Christmas Velociraptor is coming to town

He sees you when you sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for your life's sake

Oh, you'd better watch out, you'd better not cry, you'd better not pout, I'm telling you why

Christmas Velociraptor is coming to town

Merry Christmas, and watch out for the Christmas Velociraptor, IJReid (talk) 25 December 2014
Hahaha!--Mr Fink (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Hahahaha! Dinosaur Fan (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


Do you think you have time to talk about Bruhathkayosaurus if it was a dinosaur or a tree? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, we would probably first find sources that says Bruhathkayosaurus was just only a tree. I list one on the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaur Fan (talkcontribs) 05:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


Hello, Apokryltaros! Happy New Year! If you have time, would you look at the latest edit to Conus? An editor added a clause, but it appears to be unsourced. I also feel the sentence is a bit heavy with a lot of very long words. This in particular seems awkward: "their role has been particularly elucidated in". Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Although it was obviously made with good intentions, I went ahead and reverted it, explaining that such a statement needs a citation. I should have mentioned that it was sort of vague, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, if it gets re-added with a citation, we can work on the wording. CorinneSD (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


Do you want to see a long sentence? Look at the first sentence in Carp#Biology. CorinneSD (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

How terrible it is, too. We need to amputate it.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed an edit in which an editor added what looks like a company -- "The Fly Stop" -- to a list of groups that promote carp fishing. Can you look at that and determine whether that or any of the others are appropriate? I know WP avoids including anything like advertising in articles. CorinneSD (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I just checked that out, and it looks too advertise-y to be fit for use as a reference.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Did you look at the others in that sentence to be sure they aren't too much like advertising? Also, did you see the "clarification needed" tag I added? Perhaps you can clear that up. CorinneSD (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I will check out the clarification needed tag in a moment, I rewrote some of the sentences in order to correct some errors in that section: I just removed "Carppro" as the link leads to what looks like an abandoned website (pictures removed, etc).--Mr Fink (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It sounds much better. I wanted to add a link to "labyrinth", but I couldn't find any reference to labyrinth in biology in the WP article on Labyrinth. There is some information on labyrinth in the article on Ear. I don't know if you think it would be helpful to add a link to the ear article or to a section in the ear article such as Middle ear. I don't know if the labyrinth in the carp corresponds to the labyrinth in the human ear. CorinneSD (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I decided to be WP:BOLD, and link to the bony labyrinth, as, as far as I can tell, that's the equivalent anatomical structure.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Episode lists[edit]

Could you start updating the Drive and ToQger episode lists as well? I'm just not feeling it anymore and I also probably won't be able to if I get banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I should start watching the episodes more often. I can't promise about updating the movie pages, though.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


As you'll see, I've reverted an edit in Therizinosaurus in which an editor added a conversion template from meters to feet. (Normally, I'm in favor of conversion templates, but more often when it's kilometers to miles). The edit had shown feet in decimals, so instead of 8 feet it showed 8.2 feet, which as you know doesn't make much sense to people used to feet and inches, so the rounded 8 ft. is fine. With the conversion template added, the other measurement showed 11.5 feet. Now it's back to 11 feet. I'm wondering whether it would be possible to add "1/2" to the 11 feet - 11-1/2 ft. -- or whether you think it's better just to leave it at 11 ft. CorinneSD (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I see my edit has been reverted by the IP. So you'll have to decide. CorinneSD (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It's my preference to use the conversion templates when best appropriate.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It is mine, too, but I think numbers such as "8.2 ft." and "11.5" ft. are not helpful to people who are used to feet and inches. I think "8.2 ft." should be rounded to 8 feet and "11.5 ft." should either be rounded to 11 feet or expressed as 11-1/2 ft. or 11 and a half feet. If you prefer "11.5 ft." I think that's all right, but I absolutely think the conversion template should not be used when it yields numbers like "8.2 ft." or "5.7 inches". CorinneSD (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Excellent point. If it were me, I would just switch to metric entirely, if only because the metric system easily lends itself with decimals. But, unfortunately, a large majority of readers are Americans, and that this particular editor who reverted you has a bad case of Can't-hear-you-itis.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, would you at least remove the conversion template for the first one, the one that yields 8.2 feet? Perhaps s/he would be satisfied with just 11.5 feet on the second one. (Even that would puzzle many Americans.) I don't want to engage in an edit war. CorinneSD (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I just got back from a block I got from editwarring with the user's sock puppet.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pteraspidiformes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rostrum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Your revert of my deleted hatnote in Han (trilobite)[edit]

Actually, I don't understand your revert of my deletion in Han (trilobite). Do you really think that someone who is looking for Han Solo does enter "Han (trilobite)" in the search window (instead of "han" or "han solo"), so that a hatnote is necessary to guide the reader from the trilobite article to the Star Wars character?

And my edit summary was just a reference to a very similar contribution: this one. A better edit summary for my deletion would be "see 'When not to use' in Template:Other uses".

Regards --Cyfal (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! --Cyfal (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
After reading the guidelines, it then seemed better to emphasis that it was named after the Star Wars character.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Guessing you'll know what this is about[edit]

I've drafted a topic ban proposal, waiting for one more point on it. Additional action after the hatting should seal the deal. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've started it. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


If you have time, would you look at this edit to Moose: [6]. I just want to be sure it is correct. Also, while you're there, you might review my edit [7]. (Also see discussion at User talk:Rothorpe#Moose.) Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

For that first edit, I opted to further refine it mostly to make sure that the viewer would not mistakenly suspect that "moose" was used as a term for the animal in ancient Europe.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks good now. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
You owe me a chocolate moose now.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Click here. ;) CorinneSD (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Conus, part 2[edit]

What do you think of this edit to Conus? [8]. I haven't seen this phrase used in WP articles. While you're there, you can look at previous and subsequent edits made by this editor (who appears knowledgeable). CorinneSD (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"Sensu stricto" means that we're talking about either a confirmed monophyletic taxon, or a specific branch of a taxon that is confirmed to be monophyletic. And yes, I've seen and trust InvertZoo's edits and expertise.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yacón, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daisy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Gravity Falls[edit]

This is the SPI of the sock I'm referring to: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gabucho181. Generally likes to put in hoaxes about cancellation, adding nonsense about Dan Vs., trying to make crossovers with other shows, etc. His MO has shifted over time, but if you see apparent hoaxes on Gravity Falls, MLP:FiM, Dan Vs., or other cartoon pages, it's likely him or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Finealt. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I will be more aware then.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


What do you think of these edits to Marsh? [9] The editor changed uncountable "habitat" to countable ("a habitat" and "habitats"), and singular "this landscape" to plural "these landscapes". Is a prairie pothole a landscape, so that referring to all the prairie potholes in North America requires the plural "these landscapes"? I would have thought "this landscape" really refers to the vast prairies of North America, which is a kind of continuous landscape. Perhaps "this prairie landscape"? I'm sure you know more about this than I do. CorinneSD (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The edits seem okay; they appear to be grammar-checking, as there are a multitude of marshes.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


I just came across this addition to an article about a language spoken by just a few people in Sweden, Elfdalian. I thought you might find it interesting. [10] CorinneSD (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds very nasal and interesting. Thanks for the heads up.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't mean the language. The added material was about a newly discovered mollusc. CorinneSD (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
OH! I need to get ahold that paper.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Conus III[edit]

I don't know if you have the article on Conus on your watchlist, but in case you don't, would you mind reviewing this edit and the two previous ones by the same editor? [11] CorinneSD (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. After going through what user JoAnn wrote, I only removed that last statement about the 2015 study superseding the 2014 study, as both are the same study/proposed reclassification of Conidae and Conus. Other than that, the edits were fine.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

While I get that we want to adhere to the talk page guidelines, edit warring on a talk page (especially to that degree) is not helpful. The ip is now likely to stick around and keep being disruptive, and reporting him to AN3 will result in your edits being scrutinized too. It isn't a BLP vio, so it's probably best to just leave it there for now.   — Jess· Δ 21:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Even the ip's harassments on mine and BatteryIncluded's talkpages?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm just commenting on Talk:Abiogenesis. In general, your talk page is "yours" to manage, and harassment is a separate issue. I made a report to RfPP and AN3, because this issue is clearly not going to resolve itself... but, unfortunately, you're way over 3rr. A self revert on Talk:Abiogenesis might prevent you from being blocked alongside him. The comments he made on originally are really not that far over the line; you're a good editor, I don't want to see you end up mixed up in an ips disruption.   — Jess· Δ 21:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Understood.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Carp II[edit]

Do you know anything about fish? Maybe you can answer the question posed in a tag just added to Carp at [12]. (I've noticed often, when there is a sentence that says something like, "Some consider...", a tag like this is added.) (The question should really be "Who?", not "By whom?", but that's not important here.) CorinneSD (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The "some" probably refers to various authors, ichthyologists and or fishermen who refer to Cyprinidae as "the carp family," though, I'm not sure how to source that. You think it would be acceptable to look up some fishbooks that refers to Cyprinidae as "the carp family"?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I found:
I didn't find anything specific enough to answer the question. Maybe you can. ;) CorinneSD (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Haunted Mansion is a horror-comedy[edit]

Hello Apokryltaros. I know I have made a lot of edits to the genre section of some films and TV shows, and it has been considered vandalism because I haven't given a source stating all of the information, but a few days ago you undid my edits to Haunted Mansion even though all of the information was clearly stated in the source I provided. Zackdaman (talkcontribs) — Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


I was just looking at the latest edit to Sawfish when I noticed that in the table in Sawfish#Taxonomy and species, there is no image for Pristis pristis, even though it is not yet extinct. I wonder if you could find a photo of one to add to the table. CorinneSD (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

So far, the only one I can find is the embryo in a jar here [21], but I'm thinking we'd want something more, shall we say, less pickled looking.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, yes, definitely. CorinneSD (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Recognition for your recent work[edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for cleaning up my talk page! AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The Popular Culture Section[edit]

Haast's eagle What was wrong with the Popular culture section? I just added more detailed information, and tried to ensure I cited BBC's links. The section was there before I started with Wikipedia. In fact, it was my second time editing anything. I just want to understand what lead to your decision to remove a section that was there before I touched it.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMS123 (talkcontribs) 05:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@PMS123:, "In Popular Culture" sections should be a discussion of how Popular Culture views (and uses) the subject: the section should not be a laundry list of franchises where the subject has made a guest appearance in, nor should it be a word-for-word rehash-summary of the episode it starred in. Does the BBC give detailed reasons why it chose to portray Haast's eagle as a man eater, besides using artistic license to ratchet up the drama? Do the sources provide any (reputable) research to support their portrayal? More importantly, are there (reputable) second-party sources that comment on how the BBC's portrayal of Haast's Eagle colors the public's view of it? A good example of a "In Popular Culture" section would be that of Apatosaurus' section--Mr Fink (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


I just finished reading the article on Sahelanthropus and I have a few questions for you:

1) In the section on Fossils, there are two "citation needed" tags that have been there since November 2012. I don't know if you want to find some sources so the tags can be removed.

I'll see what I can dig up.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

2) The last sentence of the first paragraph in Sahelanthropus#Relationship to humans and chimpanzees is:

  • In particular, if Toumaï is a direct human ancestor, then its facial features bring into doubt the status of Australopithecus because its thickened brow ridges were reported to be similar to those of some later fossil hominids (notably Homo erectus), whereas this morphology differs from that observed in all australopithecines, most fossil hominids and extant humans.

I understood most of the rest of the article, but I don't understand this sentence. First, I assume that "its" in "its thickened brow ridge" refers to Toumaï and not Australopithecus, but don't you think any possible ambiguity should be cleared up by using the name? Second, I don't understand how the similarity of Toumaï's brow ridges to those of later fossil hominids brings into doubt the status of Australopithecus. Also, what is "this morphology"? Is it the thickened brow ridges? If so, and if Toumaï's thickened brow ridges differ "from all australopithecines, most fossil hominids and extant humans", how, exactly, does Toumaï being a direct human ancester "bring into doubt the status of Australopithecus"? Without explaining every last detail, is there a way to add a few words to this sentence to make that conclusion clear for the non-expert reader (such as myself)?

Perhaps "brow ridge morphology" might clarify it a bit?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
First, thank you for reading this and replying. Second, that would clarify that bit, but what about my last question about the significance? CorinneSD (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I should have looked at the article first. Now I see that you have done quite a bit of fixing. All definitely better, of course, but I still don't understand how, if Toumaï is accepted as a direct human ancestor, it brings into doubt the status of Australopithecus (this reveals my ignorance, of course, but perhaps just a few added words would make this clear). CorinneSD (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I think Toumaï would cause Australopithecus to either be paraphyletic, or bring the idea of it being a chain of human ancestors into question: in my experience, these two options are usually what people mean when they say "taxon S brings doubt about the status of taxon B." I don't suggest actually putting either modification into the article yet, as I'm not sure which sort of "doubt" they mean.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

3) The fourth paragraph in that same section, Sahelanthropus#Relationship to humans and chimpanzees, consists of these two sentences:

  • Sediment isotope analysis of cosmogenic atoms in the fossil yielded an age of about 7 million years. In this case, however, the fossils were found exposed in loose sand; co-discoverer Beauvilain cautions that such sediment can be easily moved by the wind, unlike packed earth.

Wouldn't the second sentence be clearer if a phrase or clause were added to the end of it indicating the significance of these facts regarding the date? Something like,

  • making the date of 7 million years doubtful, or
  • making the the date of 7 million years less certain,

or something like that? CorinneSD (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The latter sounds doable.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Apokryltaros. You have new messages at Dewritech's talk page.
Message added 17:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dewritech (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


FWIW, I've always found WP:OWB#16 to be good advice. :-) Sunrise (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Very well. But he should be reported for his blatant tendentious editing.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I would actually have called it more trouble than it's worth, at least until it's clear whether they're going to stick around. Besides, I would say there's also some chance of a boomerang here. Sunrise (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverted At Qilin[edit]

Yes, it is a variant spelling and as I noted when I reverted this it is mentioned multiple times in the book--The Last Dickens that uses the kylin throughout and in the final sequences, but if the onus is on me (bold letters, you sound very stern) I can't do much more to convince you. It is not worth an edit war. Kmccook (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kmccook:, simply saying it is mentioned multiple times in the book does not explain nor demonstrate its qilin-related importance/relevance/notability. On the other hand, actually explaining its qilin-related importance/relevance/notability does, together with reputable citations.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You mean you want me to go through the book and list every page it is mentioned? I simply thought this an example of a reference in popular culture, noted it down and then returned the book to the library. It's o.k. I am not going to fight for this. You win. It is not that important.Kmccook (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? If you actually read what I wrote, you would have noticed that I wrote about actually explaining the significance. In fact, I'm not actually saying or writing that you can't mention the the "kylin" headed walking stick: I'm saying that if you want to mention it, you need to explain the (qilin-related) significance of the walking stick in a manner more substantial than a throw-away one line blurb.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Fink, review the way this interaction was accomplished, please. The comment was in bold letters, shouting. Mr. Fink, this is an example of the men at Wikipedia that seem to find the tone of shouting bold face better than a simple suggestion. Please re-read and consider if a woman with any sense of self-esteem would do as you command, Mr. Fink. Wikipedia is a group enterprise and no one should shout and command. That kind of tone is not encouraging. Kmccook (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Tone-trolling never impresses or cows me, Kmccook, especially when it's used to revive an argument. My use of bold face and cap-lock was a failed attempt to try and emphasize what it was I was trying to communicate to you, i.e., that you needed to explain the qilin-related significance of the "kylin-headed walking stick" in a way more substantial than an unreferenced one-line blurb. Or, given as how you have plenty of energy to continue badgering me, perhaps you could explain why you have no energy to make even a paltry effort to give a detailed explanation of the "kylin-headed walking stick"'s significance to the public's perception of qilins, or even why you have no energy to make an effort to have it mentioned at The Last Dickens article, itself, if it is so significant to the plot of the book as you claim, but plenty of energy to scold me about not thinking of how my alleged reckless use of capslock and boldface would hurt hypothetical people's hypothetically delicate feelings?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, Kmccook, if you wish to continue this thread, please to continue it by explaining why you have no energy to explain the significance of the walking stick to the public/popular culture's perception of qilins, nor have the energy to have the walking stick appropriately mentioned in its corresponding article page, yet plenty of energy to scold me for not assuming a more delicate, groveling tone, nevermind that I was trying and failing to appropriately clarify whatever it was I was trying to communicate to you.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

primary sources[edit]

A link to the movie, episode itself is considered sufficient, since descriptions of what happens in an episode (rather than comparisons with other works, awards or, critical reaction) don't require a secondary source. For example, we need no source that says The Sound of Music is set in Austria or concerns a family of performers. See Wikipedia:Primary source. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

PS, if you'll look at the article history you'll see I have been quite strict on requiring cites for supposed citings, and removing claims without a specified primary source. μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Medeis: Do the links explain the (cultural) significance snakeheads in each series/episode? I mean, most of the links provided do not even discuss the episode at all, let alone mention snakeheads. I based my original decision to delete the section in the first place on the guidelines here.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll grant there's a strong leeway on what to include, but in America, since the discovery of what has been called the Frankenfish in native waters, the item has become quite a cultural meme. That's uncontested; the listed items are just examples. I'll take a look in two-and-a-half hours. I think keeping the items that are entirely about snakeheads, but removing shows where they are simply mentioned is a reasonable way to handle the issue. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Some discussion of America's view of the Frankenfish would be nice, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so I have deleted the cartoon episode, and a few others, and retained the rest in a prose paragraph with a warning not to just list any old thing that mentions a snakefish. I put an introductory sentence mentioning the reputation it has gained--a blog listing, but at least a Nat Geo blog listing. The British Columbia story backs this up to--in fact I will change the reference to North America right now, given that point. I also removed another uncited sighting from Delaware. The article has to be cleaned up every few months. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


Can you read my comment at User talk:Sagaciousphil#Sapsali? Sagaciousphil responded, but I'm not good at judging or adding sources. I just like to work on the writing in articles. Maybe you can help. CorinneSD (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Sagaciousphil is suggesting a minor overhaul by changing a redirect, and getting better sources.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Aleksander Zalewski[edit]

I just finished reading the article on Ferdynand Antoni Ossendowski. In that article it mentions Aleksander Zalewski, which is linked to a brief article. However, I have one of Ossendowski's books in front of me, and in it he refers several times to Professor Stanislaw Zaleski. I may be wrong, but to me "Aleksander Zalewski" sounds Russian, and "Stanislaw Zaleski" sounds more Polish. Since he was Polish, shouldn't his name be written in the Polish version?

On another issue, for the Ossendowski article, would it make sense, or be appropriate, to summarize the content of the book and/or include a quote from this book? I've never added content to any article, so am unsure of the rules. CorinneSD (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I just realized that the article on Ossendowski has "Ferdynand Antoni Ossendowski" as its title, but "Antoni Ferdynand Ossendowski" as his name in the first line of the article. Weird. CorinneSD (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Jacques-Louis David, Equestrian portrait of Stanisław Kostka Potocki, 1781

I just saw this at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. [22] It seems "Stanislaw" is Polish. :) CorinneSD (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Beautiful painting. However, from the link on Aleksander Zalewski, it seems that that was his name or preferred pen name, and not Stanislaw. I would recommend against putting "Stanislaw" in. As for summarizing with a quote, I strongly recommend that for enriching the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

sort keys[edit]

u should make sure u put the right sort keys on categories. (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Feel free to add any keys I miss, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I did at Category:Parrots of Oceania. (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Double thanks!--Mr Fink (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


I was just reading the article on Methanosarcina, and I saw the interesting photo of this microbe, and in the section Methanosarcina#Role in early development of life on Earth, it mentions another archaeon, Aeropyrum pernix, and it says a primitive form of hemoglobin was found in both of them. However, there is no photo of Aeropyrum pernix as there is for Methanosarcina. I'd love to see one, and I wondered if you could find one. CorinneSD (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find a photo of it available for use, either, so I emailed one of the authors of A. pernix's paper to see if we could use the photos in the paper. If worse comes to worst, though, I can always draw a picture of it.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that's great! Thanks! I look forward to seeing either one. CorinneSD (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I will try to inform you of the results, or, worse comes to worst, upload the pictures later this month.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Six Flags Magic Mountain[edit]

I'm not sure how or why this is dubious ... the article itself references and links to Rocky Mountain Construction. If there's something ambiguous about this, I'd love to hear it, as would other editors. Please feel free to discuss on the article talk page. --McDoobAU93 15:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@McDoobAU93: I reverted that edit while looking at the edits of an anonymous user with what appears to be a dynamic IP. My apologies since this appears to be an error on my part.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
No harm done. I've been quick on the revert trigger myself, from time to time. --McDoobAU93 16:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Actin filaments in a cultured cell[edit]

I don't know if you follow Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, but, if not, you might be interested in seeing this image at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidate#Current nominations. It's quite a fascinating image, and even the description of how the photo was obtained is interesting.

You might enjoy looking at the nominated images now and then. You don't have to be an expert to participate and vote, and you learn as you participate and read the various comments. A few images above that one is an interesting photo of bees and variously colored pollen. CorinneSD (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

...Sorry, I can't figure out how to create the link directly to that nomination, but if you scroll down on that page, you'll find it. CorinneSD (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about this.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


I kind of knew that the spots and patterns on butterfly and moth wings were for camouflage or other protection against predators, but I just saw an image of a moth in which the the top portion of the moth's wings look like a snake. It's quite amazing, actually. See the first image in Silk, and look particularly at the top edge of the left-hand wing. I had seen this image before but never noticed this. CorinneSD (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The Atlas moth is an amazing creature.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Kamchatka Peninsula[edit]

I just finished reading the article on the Kamchatka Peninsula. In the section Kamchatka Peninsula#Terrestrial and aquatic fauna there is an interesting satellite image of the peninsula surrounded by a large algal bloom. However, there is no mention of this in the article. I wonder if you could find something about it to add that would explain the image. CorinneSD (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


I was just reading the article on the Hoabinhian. I thought you might be interested in a mention of a new shellfish in the middle of the last paragraph in the section Hoabinhian#The Hoabinhian and plant domestication. I wonder, does this mean it was new then or newly discovered recently? CorinneSD (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think they mean "discovered at that time." I wonder if it's been named already, or not.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


I wonder if you would mind looking at this edit to Wetland [23] and those just previous to it. An editor made a few good-faith edits to the article, but in this particular one, I think s/he misunderstood what was meant. I think it was saying that in the same way that beavers create dams, platypus (platypuses?) create burrows... If I'm correct, I think it would be clearer if the word "platypus" were added before the second "create", don't you? CorinneSD (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

At first, I thought that a simple comma would fix it, but then I thought it over and decided that it would be better to split the sentence into two.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
It's much better written now. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
My pleasure.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you[edit]

Try to finish up your to do list on the images of extinct animals? A8v (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware I need to update my lists to better reflect what I've drawn, am currently drawing, and want to draw.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Moose 2[edit]

Do you have Moose on your watch list? If not, can you take a look at this and perhaps help resolve it? Talk:Moose#Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2015 CorinneSD (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC) (Posted before Zaereth's comment.) CorinneSD (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I second the idea that "unregulated hunting" be replaced with "poaching"--Mr Fink (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't you want to add your opinion there? Your opinion would carry more weight than mine. CorinneSD (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology![edit]


A photograph of Charles Darwin

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Indigenous Australian art[edit]

I'm reading the article on Indigenous Australian art, and in the section Indigenous Australian art#Rock engravings I see "Thylacine" in italics. However, the previous section I see two other extinct animals whose names are not in italics. I wonder if the italics is correct. CorinneSD (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

If it's not a scientific name, or a direct translation that's being emphasized, it should not be in italics.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Your collaboration, please?[edit]

Hello, Mr. Fink - I'm pinging Epipelagic hoping he will also participate in this collaboration. I am disclosing herewith a determination at COIN regarding a COI over my volunteer position at Earthwave Society as it applies to some of the fish articles I edited. I have taken the following actions based on the procedures I've read at COI, and was hoping you could assist. I also wanted to mention that WP:SELFCITE states: Citing yourself using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion. I believe my work is compliant with the guideline but I don't want it to keep coming back to haunt me in the future. Therefore, I am asking for your consideration in a collaborative effort as follows:

  • Alligator gar - I removed the external link [24]. There are several inline citations I have not removed because (1) EWS produced the first ever documentary on alligator gar in cooperation with USF&WS, Texas Parks & Wildlife, etc. and the information is accurate, thorough and comprehensive, and (2) there simply aren't many other RS out there to replace them. Most mirror back anyway. The article is a GA, and from what I understand about COI, another editor can add the citations and links, but I can't. Perhaps the easiest thing to do is remove them and add them back, or replace them with different sources if appropriate - whatever you think best. There is a timeless PBS documentary titled Alligator Gar: Predator or Prey, so you might consider adding an external link. It was the #1 rated program of the evening on PBS when it first aired in primetime. Once the issues are resolved, you can safely remove the COI tag from Talk:Alligator_gar.
  • American paddlefish - a featured article that has since been edited by others so it should be ok, but to be on the safe side maybe you could review it and do what you think is appropriate? It currently links to the paddlefish documentary.
  • Paddlefish - I removed a citation from the lead that probably doesn't need to be replaced. The other citations in the lead could also be removed. I also removed the Video section under External links and the link to the PBS documentary, The Paddlefish: An American Treasure. There's also a slightly different one at the Missouri Dept. of Conservation site [25], but I produced it as well so if other editors think it's worthy as an EL, you have a choice. I'd go with the Missouri one because it's shorter, but that isn't my decision to make.

There are other documentaries at the same YouTube site on Gulf sturgeon, piping plovers, crayfish, least terns, etc. Just thought I'd let you know. Thanks for all you do.

FYI - The documentaries and articles made available at EWS are academic and I see no reason why they wouldn't be considered RS. Much of the information provided the basis for what we know today about the ancestral species, less some of the most recent developments in microbiology, DNA mapping, etc. The information on the site is derived from written transcripts of the documentaries which were broadcast internationally and on PBS in the US. They were also reviewed by Booklist (American Library Association) and received good ratings. For example, America's Crayfish: Crawling in Troubled Waters was Best Of Editors’ Choice for the year 2000 — Jan 2001 Issue — BOOKLIST. All were produced in cooperation with USF&WS and numerous other state and federal resource agencies, were/still are available in university libraries, were used in ichthyology classes (and may still be), continue to be distributed by several state resource agencies, were used in educational kiosks in zoo aquariums, and as teaching aids for volunteers at the Aquarium of the Americas and also the Tennessee Aquarium, and are what some of the new research has cited because of the researchers involved. The U of Michigan cites the paddlefish documentary, [26], and the late Kim Graham who was our board president [27] h-index >50, and L.A. Helfrich (Virginia Tech) a former board member with h-index >19. While they won't pass the scrutiny of MEDRS, the information easily passes the scrutiny of RS. Atsme📞📧 20:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

So far, everything seems kosher. Perhaps I could vet this past @Materialscientist: and @Vsmith: to see if they agree that this wouldn't run afoul of WP:COI?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
That would be wonderful, Mr. Fink. Please do. It's amazing how the lessons never end here. %Þ Atsme📞📧 22:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: I'm also thinking that maybe I should post this on the TP of each article (aargh, that's a lot and quite scattered) to allow more input or is it ok to do it this way? Maybe Epipelagic will have some suggestions. I'm going ping a couple more editors for suggestions so we get this right: Jimfbleak and DrChrissy - input please? Atsme📞📧 00:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Good idea.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for letting me borrow your TP and helping me work through this. It seems pretty silly but rules are rules. Atsme📞📧 01:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I can contribute usefully Atsme. You have a minor COI issue with Earthwave, and it would be better for you to avoid linking to it. There will be other ways round this. Jytdog is inappropriately removing material from non-medical articles and needs to stop. You are both winding each other up. I'm not sure that this is what you and Jytdog want to hear, but if you were to both to pull back and stop taking these thing so seriously you might find the real issues are easily resolved. On Wikipedia "being right" is not worth a can of shit, and less is often more. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog's tagging is clearly motivated by WP:POINT rather than a genuine attempt to improve the encyclopaedia, especially when he tags an FA that is had multiple very experienced reviewers. Nevertheless, I think the general approach is right, remove unnecessary ELs and keep only links needed for verification of facts. FWIW, I never use YouTube as an EL, and only rarely as a ref, when a it's produced by an RS and verifies information not otherwise adequately referenced Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC).

Ciderius cooperi pdf[edit]

Hi Stanton, I can send you a 10-page pdf of:

to fulfill your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Fossil Fish Papers. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Done! Thank you!--Mr Fink (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


I'm going by the Paleobiology Database, a lot of these articles seem to be inaccurate. Abyssal (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't the Paleobiology Database have a reputation for having glaring inaccuracies, itself? That, and I can't believe a site that says the Amynodonts went extinct in the Pleistocene, even though they disappear from the fossil record during the Miocene.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I can opt to go with the Wikipedia article text over the database if there are doubts about its accuracy. Abyssal (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
That would probably save us all a lot of headaches.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverting my talk page comment?[edit]

What was this about? --JBL (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis My apologies, I didn't realize that the edit conflict ate your comment.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, no worries, thanks for restoring it. --JBL (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Roti Island snake-necked turtle[edit]

I just finished reading the article on the Roti Island snake-necked turtle. I felt that the section on Roti Island snake-necked turtle#Reproduction sounded as if it had been written by a non-native speaker of English. I think it could probably be made to sound more colloquial. Do you feel like working on it? There may be other similar-sounding sentences in the article. CorinneSD (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I rewrote it to make it more English class-friendly. What do you think of it so far?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
It sounds more like English now. Thanks. The last sentence in the first paragraph in the section Roti Island snake-necked turtle#Description is:
  • They were named for Dr. William McCord, a veterinary and turtle expert from Hopewell Junction, New York.
Was Dr. McCord a "veterinary and turtle expert" or a "veterinarian and turtle expert"? CorinneSD (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
We'll bite the bullet ant and assume the latter.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

By amphicyon the bear dog[edit]

I have edit amphicyon page by adding A. Longiramus by white 1942 Amphicyon the bear dog (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the machairodus page[edit]

I fixed the page Vertical blinds in the world (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

No, you did not.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
You might want to check out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HanselJolteon. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


I'm reading, and trying to understand, the article on Dinoflagellate, which I got to from the article on Australia. I have two questions:

1) I see "(e.g.)", with a reference number, twice, once in Dinoflagellate#Life cycle and once in the fourth paragraph in Dinoflagellate#Bioluminescence. I had never seen that before. Is that a normal thing in biology articles? What's the point of including "(e.g.)" without saying more?

2) The last sentence in the fifth paragraph in Dinoflagellate#Bioluminescence is the following:

  • The bioluminescence attracts attention to the dinoflagellate, and hence to the predator which this makes more vulnerable to predation from higher trophic levels.

I don't understand the second half of this sentence, the part after the comma. CorinneSD (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's improper to present a reference as though it were an example, especially if no apparent effort has been given to give even a nutshell summary. As for that sentence, I rewrote it to be clearer, i.e., that the dinoflagellate luminescing draws the attention of its predator's predators.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It's clearer now (although the way you worded it here is even clearer, but probably not academic enough). CorinneSD (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Understood.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


I'm reading the article on Permian. I've come to the section Permian#Oceans. I'm puzzled by the second sentence. Specifically, it's not clear to me what "this" refers to. Does it mean sea levels remaining low, near-shore environments being limited, or both? Also, it says "Sea levels...remained generally low", which suggests they were low for quite a while, so why would that cause extinction of animals that had developed in low sea levels?

Also, I'm surprised that an article such as this would have only one paragraph on the oceans of the world. CorinneSD (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

2) In the section Permian#Insects, first paragraph, the first and last sentences seem to be about the same insect. Are both sentences needed?

3) In the Insects section, second paragraph, there is a sentence that doesn't sound right:

  • Their prototypes are the oldest winged fossils, go back to the Devonian, and are different in several respects from the wings of other insects.

Can you fix this? CorinneSD (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


In Crurotarsi, in the section Crurotarsi#Taxonomic history, the sentence that starts "According to two studies published in 2011" is probably clear to you, but isn't there a way to express the same thing without using two negatives? If not, O.K. But the next sentence, starting, "A more restrictive group", really does not make sense. CorinneSD (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

That sentence with the double negative was a hot mess, if you asked me. I tried to surgically remove the double negative, and replace "restrictive" with "definitive."--Mr Fink (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
It was. Here it is now:
(a) What do you think of breaking this up into two sentences? ... This means that...
(b) I'm not sure, but I think the word "also" should be removed. Why "also"? It doesn't make sense.
(c) "Due to the possibly..." is not elegant. It would be good to find either another word for "possibly" or re-word it to avoid this construction. Unless I'm really not understanding this (which is very possible), I think the possibility should be explained before this. The tentativeness could be expressed in the verb.
(d) I really don't understand "using one of these definitions". Which one? Either one? CorinneSD (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and sawed that sentence in half, and replaced "also" with "while excluding." "Possibly" is used at the moment to imply that the basal status of the phytosaurs is not universally accepted among researchers. I'm not sure what word to replace it with to make it sound more elegant at the moment.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I still prefer "that excludes..." to "while excluding". It's a tighter construction. "While excluding" is vaguer. For "possibly", what about "hypothesized"?
Also, I think "definitive" is not better than "restrictive". What do you mean by "definitive"? CorinneSD (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
We can't use "hypothesized" as that would then imply that it's not yet tested, as test results that aren't universally accepted isn't the same as "posited but not yet tested." As for what I mean by "definitive," I mean the same thing as "restrictive," i.e., something that's defined as such.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


Thanks, Apokryltaros. Did you notice the "We will drive you out of Wikipedia?" (Now revdel'd.) Pluralis majestatis, perhaps? There's only one of her. As for driving me off... you'd think Kutsuit would figure out eventually that the way so many are so quick to revert abuse directed at me tends to build me up rather than to drive me off. Bishonen | talk 16:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC).

snort My pleasure. That, and these particular trolls are so cute in thinking that they can magically persist long enough to circumvent Wikipedia policy by bullying other Wikipedians into doing as they say. As cute as an aggressively virulent case of Molluscum contagiosum. Oh, and use of the royal We makes me think of one snappy retort: "Who's in there with you now, Sybil?"--Mr Fink (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Arctic Cordillera[edit]

Hello, Apokryltaros -- I'm reading the article on Arctic Cordillera and have made a few minor edits. I came across a sentence that needs some fixing. It is the second-to-last sentence in the section Arctic Cordillera#Protected areas. Here is the sentence:

  • It protects many of the Arctic wilderness, such as caribou, polar bears, peregrine falcon and the golden eagle.

I think something is missing after "many", but I couldn't decide what noun to put there – creatures? Birds and animals? CorinneSD (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Behemoth Edit[edit]

Apologies about my earlier edit on Behemoth; I believe I edited by accident an old revision of the page which retained the statement regarding human co-existence with dinosaurs. My new edit contains exclusively the changes which I intended to make.Zmflavius (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


Apokryltaros I'm reading the article on Peat, and I came across a "clarification needed" tag with a hidden note to editors with a valid question. It's in the section Peat#In Scotland. I'm wondering if you could figure out what exactly is being measured when it says "X ppm" of peat in a whiskey.

Various Scotch whiskies

CorinneSD (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

From what I could glean from the section, the "peat level" is the flavour derived from drying in a peat fire.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's what I understood, too, but I thought the person who added the note to editors was looking for something more precise. Maybe there is a link to an article on food flavorings that would help. I got to the peat article trying to find an explanation for "peat wastage" which I found in the last sentence in the section River Parrett#Geology:
  • The reduction in water levels that resulted put local ecosystems at risk; peat wastage in pasture fields was occurring at rates of 1–3 ft (0.3–0.8 m) over 100 years.
I still haven't figured out exactly what is meant by that phrase. CorinneSD (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Peat wastage means "loss of peat."--Mr Fink (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr. Fink. I knew what the word "wastage" meant. I just couldn't figure out how the peat was being wasted, especially in pasture fields, at such rates. Was it peat scraps left behind after peat was dug up in a cow pasture? If so, why would a farmer allow peat scraps to accumulate at the rate of 1 to 3 feet per 100 years in his pastures? Presumably, the peat is being dug up for use in heating, etc., so why would a peat collector leave behind so much peat? CorinneSD (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Sorry. I just re-read it. It's 1 to 3 feet over 100 years. I guess that's not so much. But how would that amount (less than I thought) put local ecosystems at risk? CorinneSD (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I suspect it would be a combination of overcollecting of peat coupled with preventing the peatbogs from accumulating more peat.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. O.K. Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mousse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mint (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi Apokryltaros, just a reminder: you need to send me a wikimail or provide your email address so I can send you the paper you requested. Rgds  hugarheimur 04:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

you should not be deleting me[edit]

I made a suggestion for a change in the first sentence but it was deleted. You seem to love to delete me and I deleted someones comment calling me a troll and then I got blocked. Seems like this is just a big game

Look. How about if I write on YOUR talk page what I want to say and then you can approve it so you wont keep deleting me. Is there some way to appeal all of your deletions. I think you just do not like my suggestions for changing the article like you own it. I am sure there is a WP:xx for that somewhere. John.r.r (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I also do not agree with deleting John.r.r's talk page contributions where he makes concrete suggestions for improving the article. I am thinking of this reversion in particular. I don't remotely endorse his point of view, but I am seeing a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Misguided as that effort may be, deleting it seems unnecessarily unfriendly. --Ashenai (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@John.r.r: for the record, I DID ASK YOU WHAT CHANGES YOU WANT MADE, and you responded with accusing me of being rude, and wanting me blocked for that. As such, I don't see why I should make any further assumption of good faith in your continued abuse of Talk:Evolution, especially since you repeatedly refuse to make known what changes you want made every time you do repost your inane demands to change the lede because you think it's somehow deceptive.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
And for the record, saying The present first sentence is inaccurate and misleading is not a suggestion for a change: it's a complaint. Or, if it isn't, please to provide an explanation of how complaining that the lede is somehow inaccurate and misleading is also actually a suggested change, especially since you think that a request for clarification is somehow so rude that it needs to be punished with revocation of editing privileges.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I posted a sentence that I thought was better and it got deleted. I thought you were not supposed to be rude here and give the benefit of the doubt. I certainly do not see that. Seems that people own this article and simply refuse to believe that it is not very good, esp the beginning.John.r.r (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) John.r.r. You need to learn how to express your ideas better. Editors have been telling you that, but I'm going to tell you exactly how to do that. You need to write something like this:
In my opinion, the present first sentence is inaccurate and misleading. It is inaccurate because......... [It would be best to cite one or two reliable sources here to support your idea.]
The statement is also misleading. It is misleading because.......... It should not say X. Rather, it should say Y and Z. [Try to cite one or two reliable sources here to support your idea.]
Then, wait a few days to see what other editors say, and really think about what they write to you. You may be persuaded by them, and in that case, you end the discussion. If you are still not persuaded, or you disagree, then continue:
Thank you, [editor's user name], for your reply. I do not agree with your statement "abcdefg". [Explain your point of view clearly, and support your point of view as best you can.] Expert X says, "......" and Expert Y says, "........".
That's how you conduct a discussion on a talk page, trying to persuade others to agree with you. You may succeed, or you may not succeed, but that's what you must do. Complaining and writing about extraneous things will get you nowhere. Corinne (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I did write a suggestion and told where I got it but it got deleted. John.r.r (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier, complaining over and over that the opening sentence is inaccurate and misleading while refusing to explain how or why they are misleading is not a suggestion.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
John.r.r. See, you're complaining. I told you the best approach is not to complain, but to come up with a better argument (that is, logical reasoning) than the other editor or editors. Don't look back. Forget what has already happened. Look forward. I'll repeat what I said above. You really need to use this precise language:
  • The statement is also misleading. It is misleading because.......... It should not say X. Rather, it should say Y and Z.
Now, for "misleading", you could substitute "incorrect", "wrong", "inaccurate", "illogical", "poorly expressed", "inadequate", "vague", "confusing", "biased", etc. Use the right word for each situation. Then proceed as I explained.
  • This sentence is confusing. It is confusing because......... I suggest the following re-wording: ............
  • This sentence is inaccurate. It is inaccurate because X... and Y.... Source (or Expert) A says... and source (or expert) B says.....
If you express yourself like this, your ideas and opinions will be taken more seriously. Other editors may not agree with you, but they will read what you have written and will think about what you say. Corinne (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Exactly.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Second that. @John.r.r:, at this point you're just repeating yourself, only rephrasing your arguments. You are not presenting anything new. Just let it go. --Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 15:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi, Mr Fink. I have blocked John.r.r indefinitely. I ask you to not post on their page again, now that they're blocked. In some ways, I can understand your impatience with their use of talkpages, but I hope you won't express it further. If they apply for unblock, let the reviewing admin deal with it. (And thank you very much for your wise input here, Corinne.) Bishonen | talk 23:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC).
I understand perfectly, Bishonen, and I do not plan on revisiting his talkpage again if at all possible.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Five minutes to help make WikiProjects better[edit]


First, on behalf of WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)

Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Harej (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guava, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)